Chris Lingard wrote:
>> ==== QUICK OBSERVATION ====
>> I made a CD system a long time ago. It worked just fine for recovery
>> and installing a new system, but this whole "system on a CD" was just
>> *too* wicked slow to be used for much more than this.
>>> I have not found this. If the CD has run down, then you will here it start
> up after you put in an instruction. If you keep it busy then it is not
> noticably slower then a hard disk.
>> My timings for building bash, (unpacked in the RAM root); and glibc,
> (unpacked in a spare disk partition mounted temporaly) are much the same
>> To install a complete LFS system by copying from CD took 9m 30s
<snip />
> I am aiming to get KDE running from the CD.
This is what I was meaning to indicate with my "*too* wicked slow"
statement. I had put X and KDE on that CD. It was all fast enough
when just doing commandline stuff. OTOH, running X and KDE just
was *not* worth the wait FOR ME. It was a 24X capable drive.
Anyway, it seems the data transfer rate (right term?) when reading
mulitple libs, programs, etc from the CD was just slow. Perhaps
treating the CD as if it were a HD just made the slowness of it all
more evident than it might otherwise be..? Especially with 24X drive.
I think in that situation a CD cannot come anywhere close to a HD wrt
random seek performance. IIRC, doing `startx kde' took a whole minute
before the session was usable, and then it was slow in every single
thing I asked it to do. I can't say more than that, but give it a go
and see what you think.
--
Jeff
--
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message